Publications

Comments by Yu. Taya, A. Rego, M. Kobanenko, A. Vasin, A. Shastitko, V. Pruzhansky, A. Varlamova, N. Voznesensky, E. Sokolovskaya, A. Rokhlin, O. Moskvitin, N. Mosunova, A. Ulyanov On March 4, the Supreme Court of Russia issued a ruling on the application of antimonopoly legislation by courts. This is the first broad generalization of antimonopoly practice at the level of the Plenum of the Supreme Court in the last 12 years: the previous Ruling with a similar name was issued by the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court in 2008. We asked experts to evaluate this document. What law enforcement problems were solved in it and what issues were left without the attention of the Plenum?

A great interview with Yuliy Tay, managing partner of the law firm "Bartolius". Topics covered: public speaking, the draft law of the Ministry of Economic Development on amendments to the Federal Law on Bankruptcy, preparation for the court session, politics and law, teaching, literature in the field of law.

The fall of Kabul  — Article by Ivan Safronov in Vedomosti  — Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of  Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine  — Ruling of the Russian Constitutional Court on the complaint of citizen E.V. Mokeev  — Control and supervision reform

Mandatory Vaccination — Extension of the List of Foreign Agents — Ruling  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  in  the  Сase  of Fedotova and Others v. Russia — Interstate Сomplaint by Russia against Ukraine before the European Court

The article is dedicated to the problem of effectiveness of the guarantees ensuring professional rights of advocates during investigative actions in their residential and office premises. The authors analyze standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights for the protection of the advocates’ right to private and family life and assess the conformity of domestic legal regulations with these standards. Reviewing the provisions of Article 450.1 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the authors come to the conclusion that the difficulties in practical application of the mentioned guarantees in the Russian law are caused by the imperfection of legislation under consideration, including by unclear conditions for the application of relevant provisions, insufficient detailing of the powers of representatives of lawyers' associations taking part in the investigative actions, etc. Furthermore, it appears that the shortcomings of regulation governing the sphere in question condone violations not only by the investigative authorities but also by the advocates themselves. Hence, the authors maintain that the legal provisions under consideration require further amendments, including those proposed in this article.

Constitutional Court of Russia and anti-COVID regulations —  Vaccination passports — Navalny’s case — Life after quarantine —  Renovation and good treatment of property — Banning Trump  and Ban а la russe — International investment arbitration case  in the Constitutional Court of Russia — ECHR decision on partial  admissibility of Ukraine’s interstate complaint against Russia

This article is the third in a series of publications by the author on various aspects of regulating the status of judges in the context of ensuring their independence.

The article analyzes the legal nature of ethical codes, their commonality and differences, on the basis of which it is proposed to endow them with criteria and to classify them.  The author substantiates the unnecessary regulatory functions of the code of ethics for prosecutors and the unreasonableness of the approaches used in it, which differ from the ethical rules of other state executive bodies.

Based on the results of the study of law enforcement practice, the conclusion is drawn that there is no unambiguous understanding of the categories of “misconduct that belittles the authority of the judiciary” and “discrediting the honor of a prosecutor”, which naturally creates the possibility of their subjective application. Any minor “misconduct” can be attributed to those and entail the most adverse consequences for the representative of the relevant professional community, making him extremely vulnerable and defenseless against a group vested with authority to assess the severity of the misconduct of colleagues.

This investigation also draws attention to an excessively wide discretion in the choice of disciplinary measures, due to insufficient regulation of this issue. Due to this, any member of the community who, by virtue of his principles and commitment to democratic values, becomes objectionable, can be subjected to serious administrative pressure by the negligent leadership (with the ability to initiate verification) and ultimately expelled from membership in it. Such a serious leverage creates another threat to individuals whose independence is an integral part of their legal status and a guarantee of the proper protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The author, using the example of the judiciary, proposes a universal criterion for determining the grounds for reasonably terminating powers, and determines the appropriate source.

 At the same time, an attempt is made to determine the true purpose of codes of ethics and their place in the general legal system.